f35b

Sounds like someone in the department may be feeding the press. I wouldn't be against F35B, as it may help both carriers into service more easily, but I will have to tune in when the decisions announced just to see the government ministers face who has to announce the U-turn!

Its probably to do with them sorting out the actual funding to implement the conversion of PoW to CATOBAR which is next in the schedule along with the initial production order for the F-35s which is due late next year, they need to budget for it now but don't know the exact costs as yet as the US don't know and that information is not likely to appear till next year when the final decision is made. Some minor lefty in the MOD is probably feeding Jim Murphy leading to his rather stupid letters which the broadsheet press appear to assume is real news rather than crap research. They are trying to get an official reaction so they can then spout about how flawed the SDSR was, whilst forgetting that it was the previous govt that made the choices which Jim appears to be trying to pin on the Tories unsuccessfully

Not only does it show what a shambles the Shadow Defence team is but how poor our Defence Correspondents are now for our broadsheets, Dsmond Wetton must be turning in his grave to see such drivel being written

The government is also in a shambles, from the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer down on this issue, the oppositions defence message is also incoherent, in particular, not funded, as extra money would need to be spent.

It is a failure in the leadership and prominent members of all three political parties in parliament.

Also the Telegraph must have made this up

"There have also been reports that Australia and Canada are reconsidering their investment in the carrier-variant model of the jets."

Labour's Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy has called on
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond to give a full and public explanation
of the future of the carrier programme. Below is the full text of
Murphy's letter calling for greater clarity on the size and nature of
the UK's F-35 order

Dear Philip,

I am writing regarding worrying suggestions
concerning the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter programme and
the possible impact on the future construction of the Queen Elizabeth
Class aircraft carrier. There are increasing fears in the United States
and in other countries that the proposed programme for aircraft for our
new aircraft carriers will not be completed to time and on budget. There
are real worries that time and money may have been wasted.

It
is vital that there is now clarity on the government's plans for this
vital area of the defence equipment programme. In particular the public
need to know whether the government are proceeding with the plans
outlined in the SDSR to introduce the carrier variant of the JSF in
2020, and whether any consideration is being given to reversing the
decision to abandon the Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing variant of
the F-35.

Decisions taken by the Coalition government in the
2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review significantly distorted UK
carrier strike capability. The decision to scrap the Harrier fleet means
the UK will have no carrier aircraft capability from 2011-2020 and then
only one operational carrier. The SDSR decision to change the aircraft
flown from the carrier from the STOVL variant to the carrier variant of
the JSF required significant and costly modification to the operational
carrier with the installation of catapult and arrestor gear. These
modifications introduced greater cost and delay to the programme. The
in-service date of the new carrier was extended from 2016 to "around
2020", as stated in the SDSR, and the Public Accounts Committee has said
that the cost of conversion will be up to £1.2 billion, but that the
Department does not expect to have a better understanding of total costs
until the end of this year. Both the PAC and the National Audit Office
conclude that this decision has increased uncertainties around cost,
technical, safety and commercial issues.

This uncertainty is
increased by the rising cost of the unit price of the JSF. There have
been delays in the US order of F-35, a cut in the Italian order and
signals that other countries may follow suit. The overall cost of the
programme is now unknown, as was confirmed by the Minister for Defence
Equipment and Procurement in Defence Questions on 20th February.

I
am concerned that the cost of conversion combined with the increased
unit cost could be prohibitive to the plans as outlined in the SDSR
being realised. Indeed, we have already learnt that on current plans the
UK will have just six operational JSF aircraft in 2020, which is an
insufficient capability. The SDSR itself stated: "the single carrier
will therefore routinely have 12 fast jets embarked for operations while
retaining the capacity to deploy up to the 36 previously planned."

It
is now time for a full and public explanation of government plans in
order to give the defence community and the country confidence. In
particular we need to know what consideration the Government is giving
to returning to the STOVL variant, which may reduce costs, bring forward
the in-service date and retain interoperability with our allies,
notably the US Marine Corps.

There is a need for clarity on this
strategic defence project for the sake of our nation and the thousands
of high-skilled jobs that rely on certainty about this project.

Pains me to say it but I'm with Labour on the concerns they raise. Switching to C was always going to be risky and I fear that with delays in F35C numbers, risks associated with EMALs and related costs, the prospect of a UK carrier sailing, US style with even 30 carrier launched planes on, AEW etc etc, has the potential to be outside my lifetime - I'm only 47! As long as B has no fundamental issues specific to itself I think it should be the most likely option. Of course QE would now need its ski jump fitted but it means that potentially by 2016/17 we can be having deck trials etc.

If both QE and PoW were completed to original plan, with near full year round coverage of one carrier carrying a mix of F35, ASW assets, embarked forces as required, that would be the obvious but substantial development of the capability we've had since 82 and the introduction of Invincible class. I think its also realistic for our commitments and finances.

PoW could advance in production, but also look to replace Ocean with some sort of full deck amphib vessel with some F35B capability - i.e. a mini Wasp class

As for the RAF, keep Tranche 1 Typhoon, update all for ground attack, retire tornado and operate a couple of squadrons of Bs for expeditionary basing (although may also consider replaced early Typhoons with A's in the more distant future). A flight of those could be useful permanently based on Falklands to supplement Typhoon and cover risks associated with loss of MPA (dispersed operation)

We should stick with Cat & Trap. The change came late for the program, though perhaps a bit pre-emptively for a government just bedding in, and caused more problems with partners and suppliers than has been publicly acknowledged, but once done we must stand by our point, or severla million dollars of effort are wasted and frankly the whole program looks like a bloody joke. Change again and we will never see fixed wing aviation from an RN carrier again, I assure you- the program will wobble, bloat in cost and become completely untenable.

I take the points about the likely operation of the carriers, and the delay of the ships and aircraft, but don't for a moment thing the B version is completely out of the woods- and we'd would be back to looking at the crazy scarey horribleness of RVLs too .

A dig at the govt for cutting harrier is valid. A suggestion that switching back to STOVL is a remedy for anything is pure horse feathers.

Its Jim Murphy trying to stir up something he can latch onto for the 12/13 budget, as his comments over the Type 45 and MARS have left him with egg on his face as those problems were of Labour origin, to be honest the F-35 program is as well as they selected it for JCA without a really true evaluation.

It's already well known that any F-35 decsion will come with the scheduled announcement next year for the initial order, when they will have had time to evaluate if the F-35C will meet our JCA requirement in terms of both performance & cost as this will be after the arrestor fix has been tested, sea trials completed (hopefully), and the cost impact of the changes to the US order schedule will effect the overall cost along with the USN schedule to get the F-35C into service. Should it not then interim or alternative solutions would then be studied.

Labour are trying to find out the Carrier conversion cost impact as thats going to be budgeted for next year when they are scheduled to make their official order revision for the CVF program.

F-35B is not the answer especially after selling off the Harriers and disposing of Ark Royal, the trouble is an alterntive aircraft will not go down well with the BAE supporters in the press & parlement if an off the shelf solution is selected.

Switching A/C won't save any money on the carriers now. It might save money on A/C, but will mean a savage cut in capability, and again, I doubt they'll ever take flight. The whole raison d'etre of the CVF program is a small but capable naval strike force, and for the long term costs, nothing else delivers the capability of JSF. Sure we could buy more Super Bugs, or even Riffraff, but the cost of more pilots, more support etc would quickly eat up any savings, and they would be far less capable.

meeware said above: "...we'd would be back to looking at the crazy scarey horribleness of RVLs too...." I would guess there are RVL or more properly SRVL (Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing) threads on this forum. What exactly is the problem?

AFAIK the F-35B SRVL profile was 60KIAS with a steepish glideslope (forget exact parameters [6-7degree] but I can look them up). With a WOD of 40 knots perhaps (20 knot wind speed and 20 knot ship speed) we look at a ground speed touchdown at 20 knots [possibly 150 feet from round down]. Of course these numbers can vary but I do not see a problem there. The F-35B has a conventional u/c layout (unlike the Harrier) with effective brakes (tested already on wet runways in the A model - others I don't know. And as one report mentions there is safety mitigation in that in any event a vertical landing can be carried out if excess weight/weapons ditched.

Perhaps another reason why both F-35B & F-35C have a centreline gun pod - it not only saves weight when not required but can be dumped easily enough in an emergency if other more valuable ordnance or safety issues arise, for a landing back onboard, either 'trap' - SRVL or VL.

"The Navy’s carrier air wings of tomorrow will look very different from to-day’s, according to a new document produced by the sea services. By 2032, the Navy’s fleet of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets fighters and new EA-18G Growler electronic attack jets will have begun to be replaced by new types, a new document called Naval Aviation Vision 2012 reads.

The Navy will consider manned, unmanned & optionally manned aircraft to replace the long serving Rhino, as the F/A-18E/F is known to carrier deck crews. The Super Hornet will begin to reach the end of its service life around 2025 & must be replaced. The document says a competitive fly-off will be held at some point in the future. The Super Hornet-derived EA-18G will also start being replaced by a new aircraft, but the document offers no further details.

Additionally, a new Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance & Strike (UCLASS) is to be integrated onto the carrier deck around 2018 — possibly with four to six planes embarked. The aircraft could make use of technologies developed by the X-47B program. The Navy document calls for “balanced survivability” so that the unmanned strike plane will be effective in “specified tactical situations.”

Watch the RAF enter with a "proposal" to use the carriers as gaint LPHs and order the F-35A. With budget cuts eliminating the Typhoon replacement, the 5,000lbs of fuel the liftfan displaces on the Bravo make it impossible for the RAF to stomach. They had the choice between expeditionary air support and deep strike; they chose the latter.

BenRoethig wrote:Watch the RAF enter with a "proposal" to use the carriers as gaint LPHs and order the F-35A. With budget cuts eliminating the Typhoon replacement, the 5,000lbs of fuel the liftfan displaces on the Bravo make it impossible for the RAF to stomach. They had the choice between expeditionary air support and deep strike; they chose the latter.

This isn't an evil RAF plan - the RAF aren't even involved in the decision making process. The MoD is organised into Capability (or CAP) areas for this sort of thing. It is their decision.

Typhoon replacement? We're not currently spending anything on a new aircraft for ~2040

"Watch the RAF enter with a "proposal" to use the carriers as gaint LPHs
and order the F-35A. With budget cuts eliminating the Typhoon
replacement, the 5,000lbs of fuel the liftfan displaces on the Bravo
make it impossible for the RAF to stomach. They had the choice between
expeditionary air support and deep strike; they chose the latter."

only if the FAA order 24 F18E/F for the carriers as 1 will be LPH and the other having Cats & Traps.this way eveyone is happy